Re: Travel faster than light

"Benj" <bjacoby@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:0229a1a1-90a4-464d-8a66-a1f0fef01dee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 16, 8:08 pm, "Whoever" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

You showed no 'mode' there .. you must made an attack on someone else
concluding with an erroneous statement. If you get length increase instead
of length contraction, then you are not using the LT correctly. I've seen
many people make the same mistake over and over.

Here's a new idea for you: Consider that just perhaps all that
religion you learned and now blindly accept as true just "might" be in
error! Forget SR. Forget LT and start from basics. (Now that's a
revolutionary thought!)

I have no religion. But for now I'll put aside what I know.

Imagine you are looking at a meter stick (or 1 meter line of charge)
just sitting there. It's one meter long. Now imagine it moving along.
Did it change length?

I'd have to measure it to see .. but obviously the intuitive thought is that is doesn't. Of course, that has nothing to do with what may or may not actually be happening.

Well common sense predicts that it did not but
real scientists have to more sure than just that. So we can take a
picture of it flying by and compare the picture to picture of the
stationary stick. It doesn't seem to change length. But we do notice
that various quantities if we set up experiments do change. We call
that "transform" under motion. And if we examine how that is we get a
set of relations known as "galilean transforms".

Or you may get Lorentz transforms, depending on how accurately one is able to measure things to be able to find a difference.

But there is a known error in our musings. Under Galilean transforms
we used the old idea of "action at a distance". This idea says that
all actions are transmitted to any distance instantly without any lag.

That is not required by Galilean transforms. One doesn't have to use that. It is allowed, but not required.

This idea is (mostly) now rejected by scientists who know that the
transmission of any action (information) takes time and that time is
set by the speed of light. That is certainly true for the pictures of
our moving stick. But if the stick is moving slowly, since light moves
so rapidly, basically action at a distance is an excellent
approximation to reality and works very well.

Yeup .. all old hat so far.

But as scientists rather than engineers we are interested in the
ultimate truth of reality rather than simply getting answers close
enough for all practical purposes. Of course calculating the true
situation in our pictures using "retardation" which is to say actually
taking into account the time it takes for the transmission of light
from objects to observer is a major pain in the ass so most
"scientists" won't bother, but just for rhetorical purposes lets
assume you that are so highly motivated that you actually do it. So
what do you find?

Well. as you've not given and data or formulas for what you claim we will see, we can't tell.

Well, it turns out your find that as your stick travels near the speed
of light it's appearance actually begins to change. If it's coming
toward you it appears longer. If it's going away, it appears shorter.

Why? And by what factor? How is it related to the speed and direction of movement?

Note that we are not assuming the stick itself is changing.

Why?

In fact we assume that logically it is not.

We could assume that .. but we don't yet know

It's only how it appears to you.

Ok . .so its just an optical illusion of an appearance of contraction or lengthening you are talking about. Are you assuming light speed is the same for all observers here, or does the speed of light depend on the speed of the source in what you are describing?

We
can call this appearance the "Retarded Length".

If you like. Though calling it retarded when the length appears sometimes longer seems an odd choice of names.

So far we've only your assertion that there is some retarded length observed. You need to provide a rationale for the claim and formulas for what happens.

Now interestingly
because you have the calculations as to how the stick appearance

What calculations .. you've not shown any?

SHOULD change due to retardation, you can use your photograph to work
backwards to what the length of the stick must be when moving. And we
find? Yep, it hasn't changed.

You are asserting that. How do you know that is what we will find? You really need some formulas here.

Note that we have not invoked SR or LT yet. We are only using Maxwell
and classical physics.

Are we? I have no idea what you are using, because you've not used anything ... just a lot of arm waving.

And oddly enough this apparent length change is
related to the formula 1-(v/c). [actually there is a factor in there
related to the viewing angle]

Is there? Seeing you've not shown any formulas, I have no idea if there is or not.

So given this classical result we might
now try to do a relativistic calculation.

What does that mean? How is it different? What is assumed?

One might ask just how do
appearances of sticks in moving frame change according to relativity.

We might just do that

Well, one can, for example, calculate the relativistic transforms for
electric and magnetic fields.

Which transforms are they?

Doing that does actually not involve any
Lorentz contractions.

What do you mean by Lorentz contractions?

Indeed if you try to include them, you obtain
the wrong equations for SR fields.

Sounds like you're doing something wrong then. Maybe you don't know how to apply relativistic formulas?

To that we add the fact that light
and E and H fields both travel at the same speed, and we are forced to
conclude that the correct relativistic shape for the appearance of
moving objects (including charge distributions) is the RETARDED shape.

What is the formula for the shape?

And that conclusion immediately leads to a conclusion that Lorentz
Contraction actually does not exist.

How can you conclude that? All you've done is some arm waving

I leave the interesting details to be worked out by the motivated
student...

Seeing I don't know what formulas you are applying, nor is it clear what you are talking about in much of the above, there is nothing further I can do. You need to do better than the above arm-waving.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Travel faster than light
    ... Now imagine it moving along. ... picture of it flying by and compare the picture to picture of the ... of light it's appearance actually begins to change. ... Contraction actually does not exist. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: STR contraction
    ... 'The Visual Appearance of Rapidly Moving Objects' ... remains uncontracted but _calculates_ that it has incurred contraction ... the GA trajectory and velocity itself amounts to, ... Those photons of non-zero mass are surrounded and affected by gravity, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Finally, Special Relativity Is Proven False
    ... Do moving clocks run slow? ... measuring 1 meter in M is equal to a rod D' measuring 1 meter in N. ... contraction occurred when rod D was speeding at 0.995c relative to O, ... moving observers in relativity do not observe length contraction or ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR fundamental contradiction
    ... The moving stick is measured to be longer in the S ... and the whole rest of the universe accelerating in the opposite ... accelerate an object is the same as the force needed to accelerate ... So the answer to your question is that the contraction of the universe ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Finally, Special Relativity Is Proven False
    ... Do moving clocks run slow?- ... measuring 1 meter in M is equal to a rod D' measuring 1 meter in N.- ... contraction occurred when rod D was speeding at 0.995c relative to ... comoving clocks, so all your reasoning is flawed. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast